If follow-up interviews were conducted, the Judges who conducted the follow-up interviews should be the ones to deliberate and create a ranking among those teams. It is a best practice to have first-choice award nominees, plus three or more additional alternate candidates.
If information comes to light that a team may have violated the Code of Conduct or Student Centered Policy, either by judge observations or from Volunteer Field Notes to Judges, that team’s consideration for the judged award should be scrutinized by the Judge Advisor. If there is found to be merit in that information, the award is given to the next alternate team in the award nomination ranking.
In the case of the Excellence Award, that winner should come from the list of Design Award finalists. Moving a team from being a Design Award finalist to Excellence Award winner may result in a reshuffling of winners for other awards such that no team earns more than a single judged award at the event. The Judge Advisor should work from left to right when reconciling award winners to ensure that each award winner is earning the highest award that they are eligible for, in order of precedence. Having three or more ranked candidates for each award is very helpful in this situation and eliminates the need for additional deliberations.
An example of this is below: Team A has been selected to win the Excellence Award. Team A was also the top candidate for the Design Category, so Team B will now win the Design Award. Since Design is of higher precedence on the qualifying criteria, Team D is now the Judges Award winner. Team C, formally third place for the Innovate Award, is now the Innovate Award winner. In the case of the Think award, that award winner is unchanged.